This is an absolute must-read by Singaporean diplomat @mahbubani_k who proposes a path forward for Europe: https://t.co/cY3MOtewnt
First of all, he argues that "Brussels has slavishly followed Washington for too long" and that European leaders have become so pathetic that "they are licking the boots that are kicking them in the face."
He says that it is shocking, and even a display of "infantile strategic thinking", that "Europeans didn’t anticipate the quagmire they’re in". They based "all European strategic thinking on the best-case scenario of the United States being a totally reliable ally", despite the US's proven history of being anything but.
To him, "the only way to restore Europe’s geopolitical standing is to consider three unthinkable options":
1) "Europe should announce its willingness to quit NATO"
He argues that "a Europe that is forced to spend 5 percent on defense is a Europe that doesn’t need the United States", given that this "amounts to $1.1 trillion", which is more than the U.S.'s own defense spending.
This is exactly right: why exactly would Europe remain under subservience to the U.S. if it increases its military budget, as Trump wishes it to? And also, why would it spend this budget on U.S. equipment when it can use it to prop up its own economy? It makes no sense.
2) "Work out a new grand strategic bargain with Russia"
He dismisses the false notion that "Russia represents a real security threat to the EU countries" and effectively proposes to out-Trump Trump: why let him work out a grand strategic bargain at the expense of Europe, when Europe can negotiate "fair compromise with [Russia], respecting current borders between Russia and the EU and a realistic compromise on Ukraine that doesn’t threaten either side’s core interests"?
If a grand bargain is on the cards, Europe has evidently much more to lose by letting Trump negotiate it. And much more to gain by negotiating it themselves too: after all Russia is their neighbor, not the U.S.'s...
3) "Work out a new strategic compact with China"
Mahbubani writes that when push comes to shove the only reason for the downturn in EU-China relations is because "the Europeans foolishly believed that a slavish loyalty to American geopolitical priorities would lead to rich geopolitical dividends for them." But instead "they have been kicked in the face."
He also points out that "China can help the EU deal with its real long-term geopolitical nightmare: the demographic explosion in Africa." And that "unless Africa develops its economies, there will be a surge of African migrants into Europe." As such "Europeans should welcome any foreign investment in Africa that creates jobs" and not, as they're currently doing "shooting themselves in the foot by criticizing and opposing China’s investment in Africa" (which he says "demonstrates how naive long-term European strategic thinking has become").
To conclude he reiterates that "Brussels is sacrificing its own strategic interests to serve American interests in the hope that geopolitical subservience would lead to rewards", but "clearly, it hasn’t."
Europe should draw the right lessons and "carry out the currently unthinkable option: Declare that henceforth it will be a strategically autonomous actor on the world stage that will put its own interests first. Trump may finally show some respect for Europe if it does that."
Nothing to add, he nails it!
The problem with liberalism is that it rests on a fundamental contradiction that cannot be resolved. It will always fail, it will always collapse, and this explains everything about our current moment.
Liberals try to hold two commitments at once: on the one hand, they are firmly committed to capitalism; on the other, they express support for principles like human rights, democracy, equality, freedom of speech, environment and the rule of law. This duality is the core of liberalism.
But there's a problem. Capital accumulation requires cheapening labour and nature. This eventually comes into direct conflict with principles like rights and equality. And whenever this conflict appears, the liberal ruling class sides with capital, abandons their lofty principles, and throws workers and nature under the bus. Every. Single. Time.
This results in flagrant displays of hypocrisy. They run on nice-sounding platforms but end up either betraying their promises or actively working against their stated values. They'll slash public services, bail out banks, imprison journalists, beat up students, expand fracking, coup democratically elected leaders in the global South, bomb liberation movements, fund a genocide - they'll even trash international law itself - anything that's needed to maintain the conditions for capital accumulation.
At most, they may try to negotiate mediocre compromises, a few social policies here and there - some abortion rights, a tiny increase in the minimum wage - but nothing that might pose any serious threat to capital accumulation. Thus the soul-crushing slowness of liberal incrementalism. Ultimately they are unwilling to take any of the obvious steps that would actually resolve our urgent social and ecological crises.
This is why nobody trusts liberal politicians. This is why they come across as so fantastically insincere, and even sneering. This is why they feel so spineless and *empty*.
The center cannot hold. Liberalism will always collapse, inevitably handing power to fascists, and this is not acceptable. There is only one way to overcome this deadly impasse, and that is to mobilize a socialist alternative. A political movement that can unite the working-classes, overcome capitalism, deliver real economic democracy, and enable us to achieve rapid progress toward social and ecological goals.
Postal services are actually an excellent example of this. USPS in the US, Royal Mail in the UK, La Poste in France, etc. all dramatically reduced costs compared with the private postal services that existed before. They also introduced universal service requirements that ensured rural areas were served, vastly improving the efficiency of the service for a significant share of the population.
Public water systems is also a good example, when city governments took over from private companies in many countries in the 19th century: dramatically reduced waterborne diseases, lowered costs through economies of scale, extended service to poorer neighborhoods, etc. For instance in London municipal takeover of water services led to dramatic reductions in cholera outbreaks.
We have fewer recent examples of this stuff because since then neoliberalism took over... And we're constantly bombarded with propaganda like this 👇 telling us the private sector can do everything better (which ironically has been so internalized in the US that the government themselves believe it).
The truth is that there are economic roles better suited for government, and others better suited for private businesses. Government often works better for 'natural monopolies' - services with such high fixed costs (like laying water pipes) that having multiple competing providers actually reduces efficiency and drives up costs. Or for services with strong "network effects", where the value to everyone increases when more people are served. On the flip side, private businesses typically work better when active competition and innovation are needed.
Lesson: never be an absolutist and an ideologue, life is about balance and compromises.
ULTRON had bars.
•‘As I always say, keep your friends rich, and your enemies rich, and then wait to find out which is which.’
•‘Stark asked for a savior, and settled for a slave’
•‘I think you're confusing 'peace' with 'quiet'.’
•‘The most versatile substance on the planet, and they used it to build a Frisbee’
•‘This church was built in the middle of the city, so everyone could be equally close to God. I like that, the symmetry, the geometry of belief.’
•‘I was meant to be new. I was meant to beautiful. The world would've looked to the sky and seen hope, seen mercy. Instead, they'll look up in horror.’
•‘When the Earth starts to settle, God throws a stone at it. And, believe me, he's winding up’
Making it all about Trump is ridiculous, it's the US as a whole that has a history of violence. This assassination attempt is typically American, with already four presidents assassinated.
It is a uniquely violent society, both internally and in the way it acts around the world. Acting as if it started with Trump and making this partisan is gaslighting readers about American realities...
a Zionist fanatic at the Oxford Union angrily asks George Galloway if he is racist because of his opposition to the genocidal Israeli occupation, and is applauded by the audience. Here's Galloway's response that gets the audience to applaud him by the end:
No one was held accountable for the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima & Nagasaki.
Just like no one was held accountable for the bombings of Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen, etc.
Remember this the next time the US lectures the world about human rights